Apparently, he does well because those Buck teams did not have 1-2-3-4 talent. Took a Laker team to the finals that lost to the Bulls. Magic retires and Dunleavy loses in the 1st round the next season. I don't see where he failed to meet expectations here. The Bulls team the played had a better regular season record AND home court advantage. No one expected the team to win without Magic. No one expected those Bucks team to be anything more than they were. They had an overrated talent in Baker (who overacheived with Dunleavy), Glen Robinson and bunch of journeymen. Tell me, how could more be expected of that team (lets remember they were in a division with good Bull, Hawk, Hornet and Pacer teams)/.
Dunleavy coached 3 teams and got fired once, and resigned twice. What CrazyJoe doesn't tell you is that Mikey boy would have gotten fired all three times if he hadn't resigned. He was forced out by the Lakers ( basically the same thing that happened in Portland, only on a smaller scale) and with the Bucks ( dude, he sucked with the Bucks). Now we have the acurate coaching history of MD.
Uh, no. I said how does he do with teams not loaded with the very best or at least top 4 talent in the league?--and it is an atrocious record. Repeat, out of 25 years for the Bucks (a very long trajectory where talent and players come and go) he had the 4 worst seasons, and his best (the 5th of his with them) is 6th worst. The Lakers at the time were expecting championships--I am sure Buss/West made this clear. Thus he did not meet expectations. Same thing was true in Portland. With Pippen and Smith Portland acquired their championship pieces. The only problem was Dunleavy's team blew a solid lead late in game 7 to cough up a ring all but handed to them. Vin Baker (all-star) was an outstanding player then, one of the best couple of PFs in the EC, the Big Dog was good (all-star), as was TC (multi-allstar--OK that was much earlier but he still was a good roll player as GS found out like 5 years later than when MD had him). And don't try to credit Dunleavy for Baker's play. Baker was outstanding a couple of years at Seattle too before he got depressed. And no coach can get credit or blame when a player gets mental illness. Fact was Vim Baker was an outstanding player in his prime physically and mentally. Finally, if you look at Milw from 90-98 the talent isn't much different, generally mediocre to poor, but far from the worst in the league--yet Dunleavy's teams fared worse than the coach before him and after him with a deplorable low 30s winning clip.
You are basing that solely on his years with the Bucks who had no talent compared to the rest of the team in the league. Robinson was a rookie and based on his career, is not a guy you build around. Baker was an obvious overachiever there and his career went south as soon as Dunleavy left. And how can you sit there and compare over the space of 25 years? That is ridiculous! Do changes not occur in the roster and in the quality of your opponents during that 25 years? If they do, then comparing his record with that of the rest of the Bucks coaches is not fair. Not one bit. Expectations and realistic expectations are two different things and you know they are. Did Buss/West expect Magic and Scott to get hurt in the finals? Did Buss/West expect Magic to contract AIDS? Did Buss/West anticipate that the Bulls were going to be the next dynasty? Did anyone around the league expect the Lakers to beat the Bulls in the finals, when the Bulls had the better regular season record and the home court advantage? Please. A 34 year old broken down Pippen and Steve Smith (who has been a good player, but nothing special) are not championship pieces. At least, they are not ones who you want as the go to guys on your team. Do you remember why? Because Portland had no one that could step up and carry the team on his back (something every championship team has) to pull out the victory. Pippen wasn't capable of that, even in his prime. Smith? Hell no. That is one of the biggest points I have been making about the Portland roster. They were deep, yet did not have that one HOFer that everyone needs to step up. Would you clasify him as a go to guy at that time? Someone that makes his teamates better? Someone you build a team around? Big Dog was a very good player, but hardly the leader of a team or a go to guy. TC was 35 years old and was two years to three years removed from a major injury. He was a nice backup, but not what you would call a key piece to the puzzel. At that point, he was a journeyman (played for 6 teams in his last 7 years). Why not? Did he not have his best years under Dunleavy? His #s dropped across the board (exept for his FG%) as soon as left Dunleavy and declined to the point to where he is crying on the bench. Did Baker's poor production lead to his mental illness or vice versa? Was he mentally ill when he played for Dunleavy? Did the fact that he was ridiculed in Seattle for his softness possibly fascilitate that? Dunleavy deserves no credit for keeping him under control in Milwaukee yet gets blamed for not keeping control of his players in Portland. Actually, before Dunleavy came on, the Bucks were 31-51 and had 3 losing seasons after he left.
Take your pick, 25 years or 8 years with most the same players and level of talent--Dunleavy had the 4 worst years and 5 or 6, the coach right after him and right before him did better, even if only modestly better. No way you can spin that. I did mean my TC comment somewhat tongue and cheek. On Baker, actually his 2 best shooting years were NOT with Dunleavy. Bakers mental illness seemed to have followed one of his best and most efficient overall seasons, 98 in Seattle with Karl as coach. It is a huge stretch to think their is anything Karl or Dunleavy or any coach could have done to affect his mental illness--it probably has almost nothing to do with basketball.
The season before him, they won 31 games with Dale Ellis as their leader. Ellis, along with two other veterans (Humphries and Krystowiak) were gone before Dunleavy took over. 7 new players were added before Dunleavy's 1st season, many of which were 24 or younger. After Dunleavy's last season, Allen was drafted (he obviously is a much better player than Baker or Robinson ever was, or will be). 4 out of his 5 best shooting seasons were with Dunleavy (the only shooting season that was better was the year after he left Dunleavy (Sea - .542) He had a good season but his years in Milw were still better (his rebounding, scoring, blocked shots, assists all dropped (his FG% went up, his TOs game down though). As far as the mental illness goes, he might have had it all along, but the situation was exacerbated under a coach like Karl. Regardless, overall, Baker was still a productive player under Dunleavy and was never the same player under Karl (except for 1 season).
<i>The fact that no team other than Houston wants to interview Dunleavy speaks for itself. Don't give me thousands of reasons. The fact is Dunleavy sucks. Wake up, Rockets. JVG is your only choice!!!</I> Hmm..let's check your facts. Dunlieve is in Houston's top two, he's the favorite in Atlanta and he's been interviewed for the Clipper's job. Exactly how many jobs do you expect him to interview for? Carslile is talking to two teams, possibly a third, so does that also speak for itself? You can certainly make an argument for hiring Van Gundy, but your argument against Dunlieve is lame. Here's a link that mentions Dunlieve's LA interview: http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0603/1562732.html
Ok, if it's desired to go by record: MD took one of the most talented team ever assembled to WCF finals twice. JVG took an average team to one NBA finals and one ECF. Moreover: MD is partly responsible for one of the biggest choke in playoffs history. Against the Lakers in WCF, he sat there watching the Lakers scored something like 16 points straight without being able to put on a defensive stop, and watched the Blazers scored only 2 points in that period without an effective adjustment to score. MD slipped, in the most crucial moment of his career. On the other hand, JVG's Knicks in 98 went to the finals as an 8th seed. In their impressive playoff run, the Knicks showed a level of resilience that doesn't fall far behind that of the championship Rockets. The East was much tougher than now back in 1998. The Pacers that the Knicks got past were loaded with talent. MD's Blazers were a bunch of underachievers. JVG's Knicks were a bunch of overachievers. That pretty much sumed it up.
I love how people continue to say MD choked with the talent he had in Portland, yet will not address the issue that a talent based headed up by Shaq and Kobe will always beat a talent based headed up by Wallace and Smith/Pippen.
Yeah right, what's your point? Shaq and Kobe got beaten up pretty bad by Tim Duncan and a bunch of solid players. Why? Shaq and Kobe gets no help from their support players. Talent level matters, don't pretend that it doesn't.
Good Point CrazyJoeDavola, The Lakers were unbeatable at the time. Also, the poor officiating in the --- 1999-2000 Western Conference Finals (Lakers vs Blazers) was one of the worst officiated games I have ever witnessed which forshadowed what would occur in the next few years, meaning Lakers dominance and poor officiating. If not for the Lakers, Dunleavy's name would be mentioned with the best of them. Having said that; Dunleavy, lost control of the team, not that any normal human being could have controlled Rasheed Wallace (see A$$hole in dictionary). Although, Dunleavy is not the worst of all possibilities, but I still believe Gundy is the better coach.
Sorry to say this (I do not mean it in a mean-spirited way), but to me, Dunleavy is just Rudy T with a good blader. We need a change of direction. I think JVG is the man. Sailor
And don't act like having to go up against 2 of the top 5 or 6 players in the league doesn't matter either (especially when your best player is not even in their class). By bringing up Duncan, you have essentially proved what I was trying to say. A team with one HOFer/stud surrounded by lesser talent beats the Lakers, but a team with no HOFer/stud yet with great depth doesn't. So which matters more? Having an HOFer or having deep talent? The whole Spur, Laker and Blazer comparsion answers those questions. In the end, it has alot less to do with the coaches and more to do with the top players on the team.
I enjoyed your response. Thanks for the support. I favor Dunleavy slightly over Van Gundy, yet, both coaches have their good points and bad. Ultimately, I don't see much of a change in the end result with either coach leading this team. That is why I am fine with either selection.
Mike is a perfect fit for the ROCKS! he left LA because the management was not that great, Buzz(owner), does not want to give him the money MD deserved and MD left those JailBlazers because they just don't want to be discipline. We don't need JVG,simply because we hate Iso Offense!!! Get it!!!
I really don't understand the Dunleavy apologists (aka butt kissers, aka CrazyJoe Davola). 1. Nobody couldve reigned in the Portland Trailblazers. Nobody. What youre actually saying is that none of the coaches that coached them were able to reign them in. Not PJ Carlismo, Not Mike Dunleavy, Not Mo Cheeks. So in other words, Dunleavy could not control the Trailblazers and that's ok because no one could either. 2. Mike Dunleavy's Milwaukee's teams had no talent so nobody could be expected to win in that environment. So in other words, the team played exactly up to their talent level. Now it's true that championship teams win with the best players in the league. However, it's a myth that all teams win as many games as their talent will allow. Are we really saying that the Detroit team has more talent than almost anyone in the league? Does a 1 dimensional rebounding king and an above average mid range shooting guard who can't play defense = Eastern Conference finalist? Isn't Tracy McGrady one of the top superstars in the league? Isn't Doc Rivers one of the best coaches in the league? Isn't Allen Iverson one of the top players in the league? Isn't Larry brown one of the top coaches in the league? Yet how does this Detroit team go to the NBA Eastern Conference Finals defeating these great players with these great coaches. How? Based on their enormous talent that 2 years ago finished 32-50? The same record that the Bucks had when Dunleavy took over Milwaukee Bucks. What you're really saying is that Mike Dunleavy couldn't turn around the Bucks with their piss poor talent (despite having 2 All Star players) but other coaches can. But it's ok, it's not Mike Dunleavy's fault - even though he accomplished less and had a worse record than any Bucks coach before or after him, including Chris Ford. Here's a hint: If the Houston Rockets play to the exact level of their talent, this team will not advance very far for the next several years. They must play above their talent level. Has Mike Dunleavy proven he can get a team to play above their talent level? Not really. In places where he took over playoff teams, he suceeded. In places where he took over a losing team, he failed. Do you want to know why Larry Brown is so revered? He has never taken over a team with a winning record yet he has a better record than Dunleavy.
Nobody acted like eilte players don't matter, overall talent matters as well. What you presented is a fact, not a point. There is no point in the passage. Please get your point straight. Let me develop a point out of the case. Duncan is one HOFer. Shaq and Kobe are two HOFers. Ducan got past two HOFers because he had better surrounding talent. That means an advantage in overall talent offsets one HOFer. It follows that an all star team like the Blazers, with much more overall talent, can offset two HOFers. As simple as that. BTW, get your facts straight as well, Pippen is a HOFer. Although going downhill, it's inaccurate to say that the Blazers didn't have a HOFer. Disagreed. The Blazers proved that they could beat the Lakers by going down 0-3 first and then won three straight elimination games. They were good enough to win 3 and 3/4 elimination games in a 7 game series. That's how good they were. The main reason of their loss was not their choke, as they were bound to run out of gas at some point. It's because they dug too deep a hole to climb out. Going 0-3 then 3-0 signifies a great deal of underpreparation, mentally or tactically. Preparing a team for a playoff series is the coaches' job. Mike Dunleavy absolutely sucked at it.
But it does not matter more than your top talent. Lets clear up the Pippen issue. Pippen was 34/35 when he joined the Blazers and was far from his HOF Bull days. Are you going to honestly compare a way past his prime (post back surgery) Pippen with the HOFers that were on other NBA champions in the last 30 years? He was not a go to guy with the Blazers and never has been (remember the Kukoc incident after Jordan retired?). Name one team in the last 30 years that had a deep/talented roster that won a title without an HOFer (producing at a HOF level). Now, name one NBA champion in the last 30 years that didn't have an HOFer playing for them in their prime (or in their early years). The answer to both questions is the Sonic team of the late 70s. 1 team in 30 years. They were the exception to the rule. NBA history flat out says you don't win titles without an HOFer. Period. That is a fact. Dunleavy's teams did not have this type of player, so history says it doesn't matter how deep his team is, if he doesn't have that type of player, they can only go so far.
If he left the Lakers because he didn't think the management was so great (generally regarded as the best in the league at the time) and the Blazers because he couldn't get them to be disciplined how exactly does he make a great fit for a team (The Rockets) with terrible discipline problems (off the court and in terms of techinicals the Blazers are more undisciplined, on the court and basic playmaking the current Rockets probably are more undisciplined than the Blazers) and a less freewheeling, freespending owners than the 2 previous teams he left.
